Gravel war victory

Editor: We finally have a settlement to the gravel wars in
Sonoma County. Last week, the Superior Court of California decided
that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors acted with abuse of
discretion in granting certification to Syar Industries’
application to continue terrace-pit gravel mining (aka strip
mining) in the Middle Reach of the Russian River, the north bay
area’s most important drinking water aquifer.
In October 2008, ignoring the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, long time Sonoma County Supervisors, Kelley, Smith and
Kerns, voted to ignore the promise of the 1994 Aggregate Resources
Management Plan (of Sonoma County’s General Plan) and allow mining
to continue. While other river terrace pit mine operators have
discontinued operations in this area, the county has given Syar
Industries permission to continue past the promised end date in
2006 and to relax regulations despite studies showing its
destructive effects on our water supply aquifer.
In November 2008 Westside Association to Save Agriculture, along
with Russian Riverkeeper and North Coast Rivers Alliance filed a
lawsuit against the County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors and Syar
Industries for acting without regard for California environmental
law.
Last week the Honorable Robert S. Boyd Judge of the Superior
Court delivered the decision that the supervisors acted outside the
law and with prejudicial abuse of discretion.
Judge Boyd was less than amused with the County’s circular logic
and confused arguments that the project was authorized by the 1994
ARM Plan but it did not need to comply with the protocols of that
plan. The court ruled that their position was neither logical nor
legally defensible. The Court’s decision noted that the County’s
arguments “confuse separate issues and miss[es] the point.”
The Court also commented that the County of Sonoma did not
adequately explain conflicting statements regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed extension of mining operation.
They declared that “not mining is the environmentally superior
alternative,” yet found that the proposed deep pit mine is
environmentally superior to the existing shallow pit. The Court
commented that there was no explanation of “why a reduced
excavation option is environmentally inferior or infeasible” and
that less profitability alone is not reason enough for justifying
the desires of the operator.
The farmers in the Russian River Valley have been fighting for
over 30 years to end strip-mining in the terraces and its
destructive effects on the aquifer. By voting to illegally amend
the ARM Plan Paul Kelley along with Smith and Kerns have deceived
their constituents and shown lack of stewardship for the County’s
drinking water supplies. Thanks to the integrity of the judicial
system we have a victory of law over local politics.
Dennis Hill
Healdsburg